DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on June 23, 2026, after the non-final rejection of the application.
The Amendments filed 06/23/26 have been entered. Claims 3 and 7 were canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 8-18 are pending for examination, of which claims 1 and 5 were amended and claims 17-18 were newly added and claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/14/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/26, have been fully considered and entered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilkens et al. (US 2025/0168246 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wilkens, in view of Purkayastha et al. (US 20250286933 A1), hereinafter referred to as Purkayastha, and further in view of Jun et al. (US 2019/0373505 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jun.
Regarding claim 1,
Wilkens discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (“UE” in Fig. 2), the method comprising:
connecting at least one electronic device by non-3rd generation partnership project (non-3GPP) communication (communicating with PIN elements E1, E2 {PINE}, e.g., electronic device, [0096] via non-3GPP connectivity [0044]);
determining at least one quality of service (QoS) associated with the at least one electronic device (determining QoS rules included in message [0090]);
transmitting, to a session management function (SMF) entity, via an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity a first message requesting a protocol data unit (PDU) session management (transmitting, to SMF, via AMF, a PDU Session Establishment Request, e.g., first message [0086 or Fig.1D]).
Also, Wilkens states SMF can perform establishment and modification of PDU sessions [0075] and SMF has responsibility for setting up connectivity for UE toward data networks as well as managing user plane for that connectivity [0078].
Wilkens does not disclose the PDU session management message is a PDU session modification request, determining to request QoS associated with one electronic device, which includes device connection information for each of the at least one electronic device, an identifier of the electronic device and address information associated with the electronic device; receiving, from the SMF entity, via a base station (BS), a second message including a PDU session modification command, and transmitting, to the SMF entity, via the base station, a third message including a PDU session modification acknowledgment.
Purkayastha, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the PDU session management message is a PDU session modification request (is PDU session modification request [0132]), determining to request QoS associated with one electronic device (sending PDU session modification request to request QoS rules, if communicating with PINE [0132]); PDU session modification request, which includes device connection information for each of the at least one electronic device, an identifier of the electronic device and address information associated with the electronic device (PDU session modification request include PINE QoS rules, e.g., device connection information, PEID, e.g., device ID, and PINE IP address [0132 and 0102, lines 6-9]); receiving a second message including a PDU session modification command (receiving PDU session modification command [0132]). Also, Purkayastha also teaches the communication path is from PIN element –RAN – AMF – SMF [Fig.4], WTRU manages devices with IoT capabilities [0079].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to receive a PDU session modification command including the electronic device identifier and address information, in response to its corresponding request; thus keeping UE and base station in synchronization during a PDU session modification, due to the fact that UE knows which device / session the modification applies to.
Wilkens in view of Purkayastha does not explicitly teach receiving PDU session modification command, from the SMF entity via a base station (BS) and transmitting, to the SMF entity, via the base station, a third message including a PDU session modification acknowledgment.
Jun, from the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving PDU session modification command, from the SMF entity via a base station (BS) (receiving PDU session modification command, from SMF, via access network, e.g, base station [0109 and Fig.9]); and transmitting, to the SMF entity, via the base station, a third message including a PDU session modification acknowledgment (responding to SMF, via access network, with PDU session modification command Ack [0109 and Fig.9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit, to the SMF entity, via the base station, a PDU session modification acknowledgment, in response to receiving a PDU session modification command; thus causing SMF to request UPF to modify the access network tunnel information, which is used by UE to communicate to its intended destination devices – Jun [0109].
Regarding claim 2: Wilkens in view of Purkayastha and Jun discloses all features of claim 1.
Wilkens does not, while Purkayastha further teaches QoS associated with traffic between one UE and one electronic device (QoS rules used to determine what QoS markings to apply to a traffic if communicating with PINE [0132], wherein PINE is connected to UE [elements E1, E2 and “UE” in Fig.2]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to identify one QoS associated with traffic between one UE and one electronic device; thus facilitating UE to connect to service providing device to consume corresponding services via proper connections.
Regarding claim 4: Wilkens in view of Purkayastha and Jun discloses all features of claim 1.
Wilkens does not, while Purkayastha further teaches the PDU session modification command includes a QoS rule corresponding to the at least one electronic device (PDU session modification command message includes one or more QoS rules used to determine what QoS markings to apply to traffic if communicating with PINE [0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to include a QoS rule in the PDU session modification command; thus providing UEs with better users’ experience in data transmissions -- Purkayastha [0078].
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1, except that claim 5 is in a device claim format, and wherein Wilkens discloses a user equipment (electronic device [160]) comprising at least one transceiver (input/ output devices [162]), at least one processor (processor [160]) communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver; and at least one memory (memory element [161]), communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, to cause the UE to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claims 6 and 8: Wilkens in view of Purkayastha and Jun discloses all features of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 2 and 4, respectively, except that claims 6 and 8 are in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 17: Wilkens in view of Purkayastha and Jun discloses all features of claim 1.
Wilkens does not, while Purkayastha further teaches a PDU session type may be IP-based, non-IP based, Ethernet-based [0072] and the address information includes an internet protocol (IP) address or a media access control (MAC) address (IP address associated with PINE [0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to determine the address information based on PDU session type because the PDU session type defines what kind of IP connectivity / addressing that UE is requesting and what address information the network must provide.
Regarding claim 18: Wilkens in view of Purkayastha and Jun discloses all features of claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 17, except that claim 18 is in a device claim format.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/C.Q.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights